Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WIGGEN v. LEGGETT & PLATT

February 20, 2004.

TRISH WIGGEN, Plaintiff,
v.
LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRY LEINENWEBER, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Trish Wiggen (hereinafter, "Wiggen"), pro se, has brought suit against defendant Leggett & Platt, Inc. (hereinafter, "Leggett") alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Leggett moves to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6) and 12(f).

I. COMPLAINT

  As Wiggen is a pro se plaintiff, the Court construes her complaint liberally. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). After reviewing her amended complaint, the Court determines that Wiggen really only alleges discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (the "ADA") and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Page 2

  Although Wiggen claims to seek relief under other statutes, the Court finds it clear from the face of the amended complaint that Wiggen does not allege conduct that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). To the extent that Wiggen asserts any of these claims in her amended complaint, they are dismissed.

  II. BACKGROUND

  Wiggen was employed by Leggett & Platt from September 13, 1993 until August 31, 2001. As early as 1994, Wiggen claims that she began suffering migraine (severe tension) headaches, and that Leggett knew of her condition. On numerous occasions, Wiggen alleges that these headaches severely impaired her physical abilities, such as by inducing noticeable vomiting. As a result of these headaches, Wiggen claims she asked her supervisor, Tina Robinson ("Robinson"), for permission to leave, but Robinson told her to "get over it." Around the same time, Wiggen insists that Leggett permitted another employee, who had undergone back surgery, to lie down in the first aid room while still receiving pay.

  Wiggen alleges that she complained unsuccessfully about her treatment numerous times. In particular, Wiggen claims that on or around July 2001, she complained to Leggett & Platt about disability discrimination, but Leggett took no action. On Page 3 August 30, 2001, Wiggen informed Leggett & Platt officer "Mr. Zaerr" that she had a medical condition that would require surgery, and again complained about disability discrimination. Wiggen alleges that Zaerr responded to this by telling her to keep personal matters out of the office. Wiggen then wrote a letter requesting help from the Corporate Office before leaving work on August 30, 2001. On August 31, 2001, Wiggen was discharged.

  Leggett states that it terminated Wiggen because she failed to get along with others and caused frequent disruptions in the workplace. Wiggen claims that her discharge violated a Leggett policy.

  In an apparently unrelated incident, Wiggen claims that Robinson threatened her with bodily harm on July 18, 2001. Wiggen responded to this alleged threat by informing Leggett's Corporate Office and filing a police report with the Batavia Police Department. Although Jeff Hugey from the Corporate Office returned Wiggen's call at her home that evening, he transferred her complaint to Leggett's Batavia branch office and no action was taken.

  On June 18, 2002, Wiggen filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (the "EEOC Charge"). The EEOC granted Wiggen a right to sue letter on Page 4 December 20, 2002, and on March 20, 2003, Wiggen filed a complaint in this Court against Leggett.

  III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that "[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, . . . shall contain . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must construe all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. A motion to dismiss will not be granted unless ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.